Thank you for the welcome.
Thanks for your greetings brother.
In my view, we can’t conclude whether there is a right or wrong approach. Because, Right/wrong is based on comparing with a standard or a way. But psychologically, i see there is no way. But we can come to an end by ‘seeing’ as a ‘fact’.
Does stating, or accepting this “fact” change anything?
Well, it is certainly a fact that we are violent. Surely insight regarding violence (or anything else) involves observing it and, perhaps, understanding it more. Through understanding there may be the possibility of change. Exploring a topic such as violence together might open the door to a joint deepening of understanding.
No. It is there to be faced. Like a brick wall is there, whether you state it or not, whether you accept it or not. It is there facing you. The statement and the acceptance don’t change the fact; they merely serve to remove the fact away from the observer. Then the observer can say, ‘I accept it.’ He can then do anything with it: accept it, suppress it, worship it, deny it and so on. But he is still an observer separate from the fact. And the essence of violence is in this division. Basically, our relationship to violence is always about control. So we never see the thing itself only what we want to put in its place.
Yes, but I am rejecting insight as a waste of time. Why do we need to understand our own violence? We have had decades of observing and trying to understand it, which has all been about pushing it away. Why are we pushing it away? This is what we are.
I am using the word ‘insight’ to convey something that occurs within the confines of the brain as a deep form of understanding. In practical terms, such insights are valuable in the technological field of life because they can be articulated, shared and are worth holding on to. A psychological insight has no value at all because it is still an incomplete perception of the nature of the self. These incomplete perceptions are what then keep the machinery of thought going. This includes the search for further insights, the desire for deeper understanding, which I consider to be a fool’s errand.
But there is a desire for order that is no fool’s errand. This is what I would like to explore.
Yes, but I am rejecting insight as a waste of time. Why do we need to understand our own violence? We have had decades of observing and trying to understand it, which has all been about pushing it away. Why are we pushing it away? This is what we are.
So, after we ‘see’ what we are, what happens next?. Do we have to act to come out of violence - by finding the root of it?
So you have closed a door here. You have already made up your mind before any exploration starts.
Why do you say, it can only be done alone? there is a possibility that if in alone - he may caught up with beliefs?
For me there is no precursor; there is only exploration in relationship. Nothing else matters.
No, please challenge it; I may be wrong. If you have an example of a really valuable insight, bring it in.
The word ‘insight’ in my view is, understanding something clearly. It often misleads all. Because for understanding, we need knowledge, which is the ‘past’.
So, K always use the word ‘see’/‘observe’ instead of ‘insight’.
I’m not here to debate. I’m eager to know what your opinion is. Please don’t break what you trying to say. I’m not a precursor and I’m willing to ‘see’.
Because I had tried explorations on my own and also how humans does. Always it gets caught up with one’s own beliefs and can’t find the ‘fact’ as a whole.
Just be calm, and put up whatever you have to say. I’m here. Always. Let’s discuss.
Opinions form because instead of looking together we assume in advance that we have a clear idea of what is true and false in the world of the psyche; and these various ideas quickly meld into beliefs, theories and opinions. All of these then take their place in the relationship between one centre of experience and another centre of experience, between you and me. From there, we try to look together at our problems; but it is an impossible task because it is our failure to look together that has created the very problems that we are now attempting to address. Therefore we have to find out exactly what it means to look together and then to think together. To act from a centre must always bring conflict. This is not an opinion; it is something to look at together.
1 Like
Yes. You are right. But, please don’t keep the knife sharp. Try to see everyone as your own ‘child’. We have to give a space to bring up ‘what they got’. And please replace the word ‘think’ to ‘inquire’. Thanks
There is no enquiry and communication without thought; it is the only tool we have. Can we think together, but not from any centre of thought as memory, knowledge and opinion?
No there is. Which is what we ‘view/see’. I can show you that. Take an example – There is a coin of two sides. If i see it, in my view, i may see only one side and only by discussing with other views i can see the other side. But if i see the coin – and ‘think’ about it with my beliefs, which is past, then i may end up interpreting the other side without by ‘seeing’ it. So to discuss - it’s enough what we ‘see’. There is no need of ‘thought’
But we are using thought right now to communicate. We have to. To talk about the coin we have to use thought in order to check that we are looking at the same thing and to point out what we see. Thought is a danger when it moves away from the fact to some preferred opposite version of the fact or starts to colour the fact with its own imaginings.
Thought has its root from memories, which is past, right?. But when we ‘see’, there is no past/memories/beliefs takes place. Thats what K says, to ‘listen’ & ‘discuss’ one has to come out of ‘beliefs’ and act in ‘Now’. And it’s possible.